DescriptionThe present research investigates how the emotional content of negative political discourse might affect candidate evaluations. Of specific interest is how the display of two emotions of negative valence, anger versus contempt, will affect participants' evaluation of Barack Obama and John McCain from the 2008 presidential debates. The literature review focuses on establishing a conceptual framework for the characteristics of anger and contempt and their social functions and discusses research into the effects of negative campaigning. Participants filled out questionnaires before and after watching an excerpt from the 3rd 2008 US Presidential debate. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups, in which they rated either their feelings of anger and contempt toward the candidates, their favorable or unfavorable impressions of the candidates, or the candidates' expressions of anger and contempt. It was predicted that anger would be more effective than contempt for unaffiliated participants (H1: unsupported); strong Democrats would feel more contempt relative to unaffiliated participants (H2: data in predicted direction but non-significant); strong Democrats would perceive more contempt relative to unaffiliated participants (H3: unsupported); contempt would be more effective for Republicans, conservatives, and strong partisans from both parties as compared to Democrats, liberals, and weak partisans respectively (H4a & b: unsupported; H5: data in predicted direction but non-significant). Supplementary analyses found that watching the debate improved Obama's favorability, McCain displayed more anger and contempt than Obama, and that liberals are significantly more expressive of anger and contempt than moderates and conservatives. The theoretical and practical implications of this research are discussed as insight into what types of negative political messaging (campaigning) works best and for which audiences.